The Santorum conundrum

The former senator for Pennsylvania and wannabe Republican nominee, Rick Santorum, has a two-fold im

Have you heard of Rick Santorum? Not many people have, according to recent polls, despite the fact that he is running for President. The former senator for Pennsylvania has extremely low name recognition among potential Republican voters. Unlike the eponymous Sarah Palin and the current favourite for the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney, not many recognise Santorum. That is the first problem.

The second problem occurs when a voter goes, "Hey, I wonder who this Santorum fella is..." and pops the former senator's name into Google. The first result - above Santorum's official presidential bid website - is a definition of a neologism called "santorum".

Santorum 1. The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. 2. Senator Rick Santorum.

Spreadingsantorum.com, the website that contains this definition and nothing else, was set up in 2003, after the columnist and gay rights activist Dan Savage decided to get his own back on Santorum after the senator made some very distateful comments about gay people. Having negative views of gay people is not necessairly a vote-loser in the Republican primaries - dominated as they are by the religious right - but having your name associated with that probably isn't an election-winning gambit.

Thus Santorum is in a pickle. Not many people know who he is, and when they try and find out, they are faced with a description that Santorum would rather voters didn't associate him with. Will it scupper his chances of being President in 2012? Almost certainly not - the comments that inspired the website, mixed with the fact he got spanked by an 18-point margin when he attempted to defend his senate seat in 2006 are far more damaging. It is only a prank, but it's another hole in an already sinking ship.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.